Timing and Signals: For IEs (and upon request from debaters) I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). If a competitor continues speaking for ~3-5 seconds after time is up, I will verbally instruct them to stop, as this is abusive to your opponents (this will also result in a .5 speaker-point infraction). I will not verbally stop competitors if I am part of a judge panel, but the speaker point infractions will continue to accumulate the longer a speaker extends their speech beyond the event category time limitations.

For Extemporaneous (EXT) speakers: I find substantive information related to your topic (facts, history, expert opinions, etc.) more compelling than personal experience or how the issue impacts you personally.

For Congressional (CON) speakers: I value presentation of new issues over new facts about the same issues and especially more than a repetition of previously raised points. Also, I am judging you not just on your public speaking prowess, but even more so I am ranking you based on your ability to move legislation in your preferred direction. For example, I would give additional weight to speakers who amend legislation to successfully pass a more palatable bill.

Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g. phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round, and will suffer penalization to their scores.

DEBATE SPECIFIC:

I prohibit any "off-the-clock" rules explanations or argumentation. For example, if a debate competitor wants to clarify that no new arguments can be introduced in rebuttals, they must use their speech time to do this, and NOT the opponent's prep time or their own prep time. This includes any attempt to "clarify" something after the round has ended. I will prohibit this and politely ask the competitor to cease their "off-the-clock" communication. There are speaker point deductions associated with this behavior. The amount of the deduction depends on how egregious the off-the-clock communication is in the context of the round (example: disruptions of an opponent's prep time is seen as a serious violation of this paradigm).

I permit "off-the-clock" road-mapping.

"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly. I can reasonably flow complex arguments at a 7/10 spread rate. Anything higher becomes increasingly incomprehensible.

Debate Argumentation Weight: I weigh evidence-based argumentation relative to the analytical point debaters are making. This means, neither evidence alone, nor analytical arguments are fully persuasive. For LD specifically, I give the most weight to argumentation that is expressly related to Value/Criterion frameworks (e.g. arguments that support your V/VC, undermine your opponent's V/VC or prove that you meet your opponent's V/VC better than they do).

Debate "Styles":I can judge any style, though I am best described as a "trad" judge. I enjoy "tricks"/"traps" on cross, but they wont win you the round outright. kritique and other "non-topical" argumentation is fine if well argued, but susceptible to eloquent procedural counter-attacks.

For Policy (CX) and Lincoln Douglas (LD) events, I prefer the Affirmative to present to my left (Competitors' right) and the Negative to present to my right (Competitors' left). For Public Forum Debate (PFD), Pro to my left, Con to my right.

A note on "Cap K" arguments For Policy (CX): I have yet to find an anti-capitalism kritique ("cap K") argument compelling or persuasive. It is never an automatic loss to run a cap K, but debaters that run it have a steep hill to climb when I am their judge. The issue with cap K argumentation is that it these arguments reek of inauthenticity; and thus, the speakers presenting the argument lose credibility. The core of the "K" argument is that an issue is SO important, that it supersedes the more limited topic/resolution and so the judge should disregard the topic/resolution limitations and focus on the REAL issue - in this case Capitalism's shortcomings/unsustainability/immorality/etc. In essence, the debaters running K are using the Policy Debate medium to make an advocacy speech. A desperate real-world call-to-action. The issue for me, is that the cap K arguments ring extremely hollow. After all, it's hard to take a cap K seriously when it is being delivered by debaters wearing business suits (the unofficial uniform of Western Capitalism) and reciting their constructive argumentation from $1,500 laptops. Its also hard to be persuaded by an advocacy speech when we all know the same team running cap K is all too happy to defend the merits of Capitalism (or at the least recommend incremental policy changes to its current structure) when they draw the other side of the resolution. If the issue is indeed so important that it merits perverting the actual topic/resolution, then an authentic, credible advocate would forfeit the Affirmative and instead utilize their constructive speeches to present the same cap K advocacy they present on the Negative. If it is not so important, then debaters ought to respect the medium and debate the actual topic/resolution. TL;DR: run cap-K at your own risk.